You and lighteredknot do realize that the wealthy are being rewarded for...what again? You're American regardless to how "smart" you were with your business. It's not punishment it's what should be done regardless. If I made an exorbitant amount of money I would expect to pay an exorbitant, 27%, amount of federal tax period. See the thing is people blame the "non producers", as you called them, for having an entitlement problem called welfare. Those very critics fail to realize that the "wealthy" have an entitlement problem called "tax loopholes, deductions, capital gains etc...". So both groups of "deadbeats" and "wealth mongers" alike have entitlement issues just on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's not stupid to say "hey the set tax rate is 27% pay your taxes like an American regardless of your income". However it is stupid to say "hey the tax rate is 27% but since you have more money you only have to pay 15%..." WHAT?! Seriously...we have a country to run and if you keep allowing your capital to operate the country, as a whole, walk out the door to cross an ocean or sea and into another country then the country deserves to be in the predicament it is in as we speak. The former is what needs to be done to balance and the latter is asinine.People who are wealthy are practically being punished for being smart with their business.(I say practically bc they aren't literally being punished for those of you who would focus the argument on stuff like that.) Just bc people are making more money, doesn't mean that they should be taxed more for actually trying to be successful and having good work ethic. Welfare is practically socialism. People with poor work ethic should not be rewarded for being like that. It is human nature to be lazy but some people go against the laziness of human nature who become successful and are punished for it.
For all purposes forget everything you know about taxes on goods for this illustration:
Case in point. If you had a business and you were the owner/operator and you had two customers walk in. One with just enough money to pay for what they need and another with enough to live your life and their life at the same daymn time would you, as the owner of your business that is the source of your livelihood, when the illustrated "deadbeat" comes to check out, place a heavier tax on those items. Now, when the "trump" comes to check out would you practically allow him to walk out the store barely paying for his selected items?
Everyone keeps looking at selected groups saying this is right/wrong and fingerprinting. The issue is it's not about YOU per se it's about THE COUNTRY and it's survival. Now if you would let the country, your business in the example, go under and have no more prestige no more buying power no more anything then go ahead, but again it's your livelihood and your everything. That "Buffett" will continue to live his/her life somewhere after they have bankrupted you while you are aassed out and now a "deadbeat"/third world nation.
Food for thought